Sex

Ezra Klein 'Completely Supports' 'Terrible' Yes Means Yes Law

|

Doh
hobvias sudoneighm / Flickr

Vox editor-in-chief Ezra Klein waded into the debate over "Yes Means Yes" affirmative consent laws Monday, signalling his complete support for California's SB 967 even though it is "a terrible law," in Klein's opinion.

That may seem like contradictory thinking to all of us non-wonks, but he does explain it:

It tries to change, through brute legislative force, the most private and intimate of adult acts. It is sweeping in its redefinition of acceptable consent; two college seniors who've been in a loving relationship since they met during the first week of their freshman years, and who, with the ease of the committed, slip naturally from cuddling to sex, could fail its test.

The Yes Means Yes law is a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem. Its overreach is precisely its value.

What's the extreme problem? The supposed epidemic of campus rape, which Klein claims—repeatedly throughout his article—impacts 1 in 5 college women. Whatever the problems with SB 967, they should be set aside in service of the goal of minimizing campus rape, he writes:

The Yes Means Yes laws creates an equilibrium where too much counts as sexual assault. Bad as it is, that's a necessary change. A culture where one-in-five women is assaulted isn't going to be dislodged with a gentle nudge. 

Let me get this straight: Any piece of legislation is worthwhile, no matter how terrible it is, as long as it has the goal of decreasing rape? I thought Vox was supposed to be the home of smart, number-crunching journalism, where experts evaluate the actual effects of policies instead of merely rubber-stamping their goals? Alas.

Klein should recognize the myriad ways in which he is possibly, or even likely, wrong. First of all: who is to say that "Yes Means Yes" will actually decrease instances of sexual assault? The law's main function is to push colleges to investigate and adjudicate sexual assault based on a narrower set of standards and without recognition of established due process rights. Given the track record of campus rape trials, there is little reason to think colleges will excel here. I predict more lawsuits—from both accusers and the accused—and similar levels of sexual assault. The heavy hand of government does not automatically and instantly change culture in the manner that central planners envision.

Furthermore, the 1-in-5 statistic is hotly contested, as Klein surely knows. (See The Washington Examiner's Ashe Schow and American Enterprise Institute's Christina Hoff Sommers for thorough debunking.) That statistic was produced by a survey of just two colleges; the survey had a high non-response rate, and critics contend that victims of sexual assault were more likely to respond in the first place, skewing the results. The 1-in-5 statistic is also out of whack with national figures: just 1.3 in 1,000 people age 12 and up are victims of sexual assault nationwide, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Again, if doing something—anything!—about campus rape is only necessary because the rape rate is an absurdly high 1 in 5, then Klein better be damn sure about that statistic. Plenty of other experts who have considered the matter at length are not.

Klein's do something at all costs approach is also an indictment of the modern left's warped priorities and callous disregard for due process. Safeguarding the rights of the accused was once a cardinal virtue of civil liberalism. But for many so-called progressives, paranoia about sexual violence trumps all other considerations. They have much in common with the tough-on-crime conservatives of past decades, in that respect.

More from Reason on Yes Means Yes here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

149 responses to “Ezra Klein 'Completely Supports' 'Terrible' Yes Means Yes Law

  1. I suddenly had a vision of the future, as the Kwittheshitz Hadenough is wont to do after consuming too much spice. Sex will require a license. A fucker’s license, issued by the state.

    1. A fucker’s license, issued by the state.

      Your credentials, sir!

      1. Fucking without a fucker’s license, issued by the state, will be a criminal act.

        There will also be learners’ permits, which allow heaving petting but no sex. A parent must accompany the learners’ permit holder whenever the learner is pre-fucking. And courses will be taught in schools, using state-issued prostitutes for the fucking test.

        1. Only this is not just about fucking. It’s also about anyone being offended for any reason at all. So if your girlfriend gains 40 lbs and you suddenly decide you don’t want sex, that’s assault. Decide to break up, assault. This is what these people want, they want the state to punish anyone they get upset with over anything, no matter how small, and they want that done without due process.

          1. Well, just like with a drivers’ license, there are violations that can get your fuckers’ license suspended or revoked. FUI, for instance.

            1. You’re on a roll today

              1. There’s also speeding, which is jumping straight to sex without engaging in thoughtful foreplay, and there’s reckless fucking, which is non-procreative sex without state-issued contraceptives.

                1. What’s wrong with a kiss, boy? Hmm? Why not start her off with a nice kiss? You don’t have to go leaping straight for the clitoris like a bull at a gate. Give her a kiss, boy.

                  Or else.

                2. Because DYTW?

            2. Is that pronounced ‘Phooey’?

              1. Yes. Lots of phooeying around.

            3. So can you get a ticket for going 69?

          2. This is happening on all fronts. What the state wants is for everybody to be a paper felon as soon as they turn 18 so nobody has any rights.

        2. And courses will be taught in schools, using state-issued prostitutes for the fucking test.

          Sounds like high school to me.

        3. Can we still fuck the sex robots or do we need a licence for that as well?

      2. I need to see your license, registration, and logbook.

    2. I don’t understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal, fucking is legal. So why isn’t it legal to sell fucking? Why should it be illegal to sell something that’s legal to give away? I can’t follow the logic.

      1. Because the prostitutes are victims of the patriarchy, duh!

        1. I hope you didn’t think that was original.

          1. . . . didn’t think I was being orginal.

            1. Well I have to take a shit but the weekend is coming up. I’ve only got two left.

        2. And how many sex workers do you know? Or do you believe everything you read when the people discussed aren’t even allowed to talk on the subject unless they toe the Government’s line?

      2. Worse, if you bring a third person – someone with a video camera, then its legal again, unless you film in LA without a condom.

      3. And what’s the deal with airplane peanuts?

        1. Who. Are. These. People?

        2. What part of the McChicken does the McNugget McCome from?

  2. Much in common? They’re the same people, they just don’t know it.

    1. And have been since at least the eighties.

  3. Another Millennial having his libertarian moment?

  4. A culture where one-in-five women is assaulted isn’t going to be dislodged with a gentle nudge.

    No they’re not. Unless you lower the bar for ‘assault’ to what a few months ago were called ‘microagressions’.

    1. They’re microrapes.

      1. One million micro-rapes equals one rape-rape.

        1. Wrong Aggie…it is one thousand micro rapes equals one rape. Not one million. It is metric.

          1. Mili is the prefix for 1/1,000

            Micro is 1/1,000,000

            1. Math is a white male construct.

  5. I wish Klein and Iglesias would go to Iraq to get ISIS’ opinion on this issue.

    1. It could be dangerous, so we’ll need to send 2 brave warriors to protect them, McCain and Graham.

      1. McCain’s already been there. He and ISIS are ole pals.

    2. Doh, now you’ve issued a veiled threat. This implies that Klein and Inglesias have to be right about everything, all the time.

    3. Yglesias could just walk around his neighborhood asking.

    4. Couldn’t they just get a room?

  6. Safeguarding the rights of the accused was once a cardinal virtue of civil liberalism

    Once you accept that the only civil libertarians today are libertarians, this gets a lot easier. So called liberals of today are statist authoritarians, the opposite of liberal.

    1. It’s funny, if you ask liberals what liberalism is, they describe libertarianism in practice. They don’t realize they are authoritarian in practice.

  7. Klein says something stupid. This story and others, tonight at 11:00.

  8. This is just the mask slipping a little further. These ‘liberals’ are totalitarian control freaks, they’re just getting bold enough to start to admit it, that’s all.

    1. Exactly. Drastic measures are an end, not a means. Or, they may be a means to an end that is very different from the stated end.

  9. This is my shocked face.

  10. Ezra Klein is a miserable piece of shit more impressed with his own moral preening than with any idea of good governance — which to him is all about appearing like you care.

    1. So… your typical Progressive.

  11. OK, don’t call students rapists because of their various sex activities – just restore parietal rules while waiting for the residential college model to go on the ash heap of history.

  12. The eventual transcript of every college campus sexual assault hearing:

    Girl: “I didn’t say yes at step 4”
    Boy: “neither did i!”
    [sudden clarity takes hold of both parties]
    In unison: “I was too scared to not continue!”

    1. In that case, it was the girl who was raped. We all know that men are opportunistic predators.

  13. I was going to make some joke about Klein’s terrible sex life, but he did manage to bag an attractive lady.

    1. I bet she hasn’t had decent sex in years. I will give ten bucks she is fucking around on him and that in his private life Klein is a complete abusive asshole to her. This whole thing screams of Klein compensating for something.

      1. I bet she hasn’t had decent sex in years. I will give ten bucks she is fucking around on him and that in his private life Klein is a complete abusive asshole to her. This whole thing screams of Klein compensating for something.

        Can we leave the ad homs out? You guys like to go on about prog projection when they say something stupid out libs or R’s, yet this is the exact same shit.

        1. How dare you attempt to inject self awareness into this forum?! FFS, this is teh interwebs!!

        2. Not really. I wondered right away when I read his comments what was making him write what he did. I went in the direction of his sister was raped, or his girlfriend was. But, John’s suggestion makes sense.

          Look at how many of the most vocal family value Republicans ended up getting caught having gay sex in bathrooms.

    2. 6/10.

      1. Tough crowd. Although she has possibly been sullied by Klein.

        1. 6/10 isn’t bad. She’s not ugly, but I wouldn’t break my neck to get a second look at her if she walked by.

          1. I’d go 6, but with the caveat about ratings inflation. 6 is more attractive than average, and there are plenty of 4s who get laid all the time. 7s are pretty unusual, and 8s and 9s are damn rare.

        2. I would only touch her if I could fuck the hell out of her right in front of Klein in order to utterly humiliate the miserable little bastard.

          1. Be careful John, he might like that.

          2. Dude. . .Ezra Klein was IN THAT.

            Ew.

            1. It was great once I got past the used part.

              1. I feel bad for laughing at that.

        3. Tough crowd. Although she has possibly been sullied by Klein.

          There’s a 1 in 5 chance he’s already assaulted her?

          1. If it is a typical relationship there is a 100% chance he has assaulted her, or she him. Who hasn’t been in a situation where one person was less into it at that moment than the other?

  14. This kind of utilitarian over reach will someday lead to a new legal principle: that it is better to imprison 100 innocents than to let one guilty party go free.

    1. +1 Ben Franklin with a goatee.

    2. Said much the same thing below.

  15. I dub this Kleinsplaining.

    1. I thought we agreed it was Chicksplaining.

  16. Guys, you just don’t get it. Once we make everyone into criminals, we can basically just put people in jail on the basis of we don’t like them.

    Oh wait, shit, I thought this was a discussion on Journolist. Forget I said anything. FORGET… FORGET… FORRRRGETTTT…

    1. Wait, what just happened?

  17. If 1 in 5 girls gets raped at college, you shouldn’t send girls to college. I mean, what the fuck? That’s a huge number. It would call for locking down dorms at 10 and having strictly segregated dorms.

    1. Yes, but not because of bogus 1 in 5 statistics.

    2. No, he’s completely serial there.

      Everyone would still send their little snowflakes off to a place where they had a 20% chance of dying. Those are good odds of survival!

    3. 20% casualties in a battle would be considered catastrophic. Countries have surrendered over 20% casualties.

      1. True, but at the Somme, the numbers were a bit higher.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B…..Casualties

    4. If 1 in 5 girls gets raped at college, you shouldn’t send girls to college.

      See? You fell for it. This is the same thing the NHTSA does with ‘Alcohol Related Incidents’ – conflates them with DUI and so when they put out ARI statistics that’s assumed to be DUI statistics.

      Their numbers are 1 in 5 women are ‘sexually assaulted’ – then they leave out their definition of sexually assaulted.

      To you and I, sexual assault is a pretty major thing. To them it can be a friend (who you are not sexually interested in) grabbing your ass. It can be someone making a lewd comment in the elevator.

      By putting a wide range of behaviors (especially those that are criminalized under *other* laws like harrassment or disorderly conduct) they can put out these crazy ratios and have you thinking that they’re talking only about serious crimes.

      1. Same thing they do with Gun Violence stats, throwing in accidental discharges and suicides, because guns=danger!

  18. The most infuriating part of that piece was Klein saying that the presumption of innocence enjoyed by accused rapists is a form of privilege since it allows more women to be victimized.

    It has to be the most openly and objectively evil thing he has ever written.

    1. He assumes anyone accused is guilty. He is a vile fascist piece of shit. But we already knew that.

    2. People like Klein will always eventually descend into open, abject evil eventually because they absolutely do not care about the results of their actions and policies. Eventually something will be proposed for “good intentions” reasons that will in practice have horrific, evil results, and they will support it 100%, because results do not matter to them. At all. And they will do this over and over and over.

  19. Its overreach is precisely its value.

    Better that a thousand innocent men are convicted than one patriarchal, othering rapist go free. That is what Blackstone wrote, right?

    1. Blackstone, despite the name, was a white man and part of the patriarchal establishment.

      He was probably raping his (UNPAID!) interns and the law clerks probably had a heirarchy of who could rape who established according to seniority of position.

      So we can ignore what he wrote.

  20. Let me get this straight: Any piece of legislation is worthwhile, no matter how terrible it is, as long as it has the goal of decreasing rape?

    Welcome to the progressive mindset. Intentions and words matter, actions and results do not. Will the legislation work? Will it fuck up lives while not working? Is it morally reprehensible?

    None of that matters. NONE. It has a noble intention, therefore Klein says go for it. Because results do not matter.

    If you understand this, you will understand the progressive. You will understand their love of socialism and communism, and their support for vile dictators who say the right things. It is one of their underlying operating procedures.

    1. If any legislation is worthwhile as long as it has the goal of decreasing rape, why not just shoot anyone accused of rape? It would be worthwhile according to Klein.

    2. The Yes Means Yes law is a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem. Its overreach is precisely its value.

      If I didn’t know any better, I’d say he was writing of the Jewish problem.

      1. I see this shit as Klein’s half-hearted attempt to appear reasonable.

        1. Declare there is in fact an extreme culture of rape going on in America. Agree with faulty premise, perpetuate it.

        2. Admit that the law may be a bit of an overreach (Klein takes on both sides! Truth to power!) but it exists only because #1 is true.

  21. The best part of the law:

    Or take another common situation: consent that may or may not have been delivered by someone who may or may not have been too drunk to deliver it. The law is plain on this point, “It shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity … due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication.” If you go before the college board and say that the woman accusing you of assault simply doesn’t remember that she said yes because she was so drunk, then you’ve already lost.

    For you non-drinkers, here’s a primer on how absurd that is.

    1. A woman may be too drunk to give consent, but a man is never too drunk to accurately interpret consent.

      Because, you know, equality.

    2. So, all a rapist has to do is claim he has no idea what happened because he was too drunk to remember, then accuse her of rape. If they say, no way, doesn’t count, you’re a dude, accuse them of sexual discrmination against men. If that fails, claim you identify as female and accuse them sexual discrimination against transwomen.

      1. Yes, just identify as a transsexual drag king lesbian, and you have three victim creds in one, while still being a biological male who likes to f*ck women.

    3. I’m kind of amazed they felt the need to go into that much detail on blacking out.

      For the record, I once came out of a blackout in the middle of having sex with a girl who I had previously warned my friend to keep me away from (she was also the DD).

      1. Oh, and I consider that me being a drunken idiot, not her raping me.

        1. Non-drinkers have no conception of this. Seriously. Even most light drinkers think “black-out” means “pass-out”.

          1. Seriously? This is something I just assumed everyone knew…

            1. Seriously. Also, no one seems to realize that sea levels have been rising for almost all of recorded history.

              These two blind spots have both been used to great effect to push bullshit policies recently.

        2. Was she tied up and gagged at the time. If so, she didn’t rape you.

    4. Based on your link, I can’t figure out who raped whom. If both participants were drunk, we is it framed as if the woman was raped?

      1. The only answer to this obvious question I’ve heard is “check your privilege.”

    5. I’ve noticed it’s pretty common for people who get “black-out” drunk to act like they’re not responsible for their actions. Guys do it too.

      I secretly judge people who do that, because I think you can control how much you drink. But I don’t say anything because in my experience it’s widely considered a free pass to do lots of things. Then again, I’ve known a lot of alcoholics.

    6. That was interesting if it is true.

      I was in the bar business for ten years. A long time ago, when drinking to excess was considered perfectly okay.

      A guy came in to the hotel I owned, he was a customer but a buddy of mine, just as I was sitting down to dinner. I asked him if he would like to have dinner, he said he hadn’t eaten, and we had dinner. We had a nice conversation, which surprised me because he was typically an out of control crazy sort of guy. We got along great, and I’m the opposite, but this night he was calm, relaxed, very clear, not at all his usual self.

      It turned out he was in a black out. He had drunk a 40 oz of vodka the day before and had been nipping at white lightning, home made hootch since then.

      I mentioned to him what a pleasant dinner we had when next I saw him and he said ‘what?’. I said ‘dinner, Saturday!’. He told me he was in a full on black out all weekend, didn’t remember a thing, and told me what he had been drinking since early on the Friday.

      I know of this happening with heavy drinkers, but I wasn’t aware it can happen with non-heavy drinkers. That is, a person can appear quite sober, act completely in control, and be absolutely out of their mind drunk. There is not a chance in the world you would think a young girl was drunk if she was in a walking black out state as the link says is quite possible and actually somewhat prevalent.

  22. I don’t understand why people keep bringing this up like it means something:

    A culture where a frat thinks its funny to throw a party with signs that say “No means yes, yes means anal” won’t fall without a fight. Ugly problems don’t always have pretty solutions.

    1. When saying appropriate and expected things is funny we will have the right culture. When you speaketh of women you must always bow thy head.

    2. Is that part of Klein’s justification? If it is, I’ll reiterate what was said above: this is evil. Terrible legislation that could punish a bunch of innocent people is necessary, because of an ugly joke at a frat party.

      1. It is. It’s his damn conclusion.

  23. We all know how for leftists good intentions tend to trump results, but rarely is it admitted so baldly.

    I’m having a hard time imagining Klein supporting some equivalently stupid but well-intentioned law coming from the right.

    1. When it comes from non-progressives the signs about “getting government out of the bedroom” and “keep your laws off my body” will get dusted off and trotted out, without even a trace of irony.

    2. Like taking leftist “precautionary principle” rhetoric and, say, applying it to abortion?

      “Well, there may not be 100% scientific consensus that it’s a ‘person’ but we have to, in good conscience, ban ALL abortion because of the mere possibility that it is, in fact, not a gazelle.”

      1. Or, a bald eagle. You cannot hurt a bald eagle. We can drone wedding parties, but for God’s Sake! Don’t hurt an eagle!

  24. At my university, there are roughly 2500 women living in campus housing, and another 5000 or so female commuters. In the last three years, the number of sexual assault cases on campus is 9, according to the annual crime statistics we (along with all other universities) are required to publish every year. So either 98% go unreported, or the BJS numbers are a lot closer to the truth.

    Anybody who wants to know the actual numbers could visit some college web sites and easily get them. I’d say that for some people, it is much easier to just quote someone else’s terrible research than to do an hour’s worth of their own.

    1. Hmmm. Just checked our Clery report, and with roughly 10,000 undergraduate women we had 6 sexual assault cases in 2013. That seems to be a little less than 1 in 5, if I have my arithmetic right…
      Yeah, I’m pretty sure 6 is less than 2000.
      Sigh…

  25. The Yes Means Yes law is a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem. Its overreach is precisely its value.

    Klein Kamf?

    1. Damn it. Kampf.

  26. If I wake up tomorrow morning and read that Klein has been abducted and tortured to death, I will applaud.

    If I ever meet his killers, I will not turn them in. I will not call the authorities. I won’t even reproach them.

    I will buy them a beer.

    Klein doesn’t care about justice for others, and admits it. That frees me morally to not care about justice for Klein.

    I am taking your maxim and making it my own, Ezra.

    1. He says explicitly that he would support any law, no matter how cruel and unjust so long as it has the proper goal of solving a problem he thinks is important.

      Klein really would applaud the killing of millions. He is no different or better than the people who have. He just hasn’t had the opportunity like they had, yet.

      1. No.

        He says more than that.

        He identifies the law as cruel and unjust, and says that it why it is good.

        Because he explicitly wants cruelty and injustice to create a climate of terror.

        He writes that. Literally that.

        men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter

        Well, great. I have read my Kant over again and let’s see if I can construct a Golden Rule for this:

        “Do not trouble yourself with injustices that befall people who explicitly say they prefer terror to justice.”

        Yup. That works. No loopholes. I can safely applaud if something horrific befalls Klein, and pat myself on the back that it’s totally moral.

        1. You are right. It is worse than that. He wants to punish all men as a collective.

        2. Yup. That works. No loopholes. I can safely applaud if something horrific befalls Klein, and pat myself on the back that it’s totally moral.

          Nope, thought crime. To date, Klein has committed no aggression, in this area at least. Until he actually does, he does not “deserve” death.

          Where is the line here, I don’t know. A belief in personal responsibility does not make me think that you can blame even Marx and Engles for the evils committed because of their writings any more than you can blame the carpenter from Nazareth for things done because of what he said.

          Isn’t there a line between argument and actions?

          Now fuck you for making me defend Klein!

          1. To date, Klein has committed no aggression, in this area at least.

            That would be the line to determine whether I could personally use force against Klein.

            I’m not claiming to be personally morally entitled to use force against Klein. Of course, I am not. For the very reason you describe.

            What we’re talking about is whether it would be immoral for me to be glad if someone ELSE committed a grave injustice AGAINST Klein.

            I’m arguing that it would not be, because Klein has voluntarily declared that he doesn’t value justice and prefers cruelty and injustice. If he declares that, and then suffers cruelty and injustice himself (at the hands of someone-not-me), am I obligated to care? I don’t see why.

      2. Out of one side of the mouth comes the drivel that Klein puts out. Out the other side of the mouth is the assertion that we could never be the same as those horrible totalitarian regimes. Missing from the equation is any self awareness regarding his useful idiocy.

      3. solving a problem he thinks is important exists.

        Fixed.

  27. Fuck Ezra Klein.

  28. Someone really needs to make a video that starts off like a romance trailer, guy and girl with opposing lives and backgrounds, show them arguing while interspersing clips of their differences, build up to that climactic moment where anger and shouting transmute suddenly to passion, they go straight from kissing to ripping off clothes, and then the windows burst as a bunch of people in SWAT gear swing in, shouting “Social Justic Warriors! On the ground! On the ground, rapist!” and then it turns into a trailer for some hypothetical SJW-cops movie, like Jezebel wrote the script for Bad Boys.

  29. These people are evil. To them straight white men are what Jews were to the Nazis. I don’t think they will succeed the way they would like to and kill them all. But they certainly would if they could.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/art…..-dethroned

    Read this article and tell me they are not insane.

    1. Nope. Not gonna do it. You can’t make me. Ho Chi Minh’s most talented torturers couldn’t make me read that. Fuck that shit.

      1. We should have a Reason Fear Factor. Instead of eating insects, intestines, etc. the challenge could be to read terrible articles like that.

    2. Ah…this explains just so much about the articles author!

      Grayson Perry, CBE (born 24 March 1960) is an English artist, known mainly for his ceramic vases and cross-dressing. Perry’s vases have classical forms and are decorated in bright colours, depicting subjects at odds with their attractive appearance. There is a strong autobiographical element in his work, in which images of Perry as “Claire”, his female alter-ego, often appear. He was awarded the Turner Prize in 2003.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayson_Perry

      Just when the fuck did the Brits go completely off the rails?

  30. First of all: who is to say that “Yes Means Yes” will actually decrease instances of sexual assault?

    Actually, its *will* mean an increase in sexual assault as now every sexual encounter that doesn’t get ‘enthusiastic, affirmative’ consent will be (by legislation) sexual assault.

    It will give the ‘rape culture’ people huge fucking woodies since now they can claim that an ever increasing percentage of ‘sexual assaults’ go unreported – and without lying about it.

  31. “Yes means Yes” laws are destined to be overturned by the Supreme Court, since they fundamentally conflict with the presumption of innocence.

    If an accused rapist must show that affirmative consent was obtained, that means he is being required to supply some positive proof of his innocence. But a lack of any positive affirmation does not (by definition) leave a trace. Thus the accused would have to be convicted based upon an absence of evidence that the victim consented. That violates presumption of innocence.

  32. Re: “Safeguarding the rights of the accused was once a cardinal virtue of civil liberalism. But for many so-called progressives, paranoia about sexual violence trumps all other considerations.”

    They are nudging us from “It’s better that ten guilty go free than one innocent be convicted” to “It’s better that ten falsely accused of rape get convicted than one guilty of rape go free.”

    “The Sexual Harassment Quagmire: How To Dig Out” http://malemattersusa.wordpres…..-quagmire/

  33. This is really no big deal. All that is required is a few subcontractors and a little paperwork. My wife and I believe that we fulfill all of these government consent expectations right now.

    First, I have my agent contact her agent about the possibility of a “date”. After a few weeks, and several counter offers (restaurant, type of wine, location of proposed “activity”, financial considerations, insurance etc) we agree to an “incident”. The number of subcontractors is also significant but handled between our attorneys, agents and date coordinators. Once we have agreed, in writing in triplicate, on time keepers, referees, notaries, seconds (in case one of us is injured and unable to perform) costume designers, photographers, and stenographers it usually takes less than six months to “consummate” and has yet to cost in the seven figures.

  34. Let me get this straight: Any piece of legislation is worthwhile, no matter how terrible it is, as long as it has the goal of decreasing rape?

    Yes, it is to these people because all they care about are intentions and feelz.

  35. The Yes Means Yes laws creates an equilibrium where too much counts as sexual assault. Bad as it is, that’s a necessary change. A culture where one-in-five women is assaulted isn’t going to be dislodged with a gentle nudge.

    I hope he realizes that broadening the definition of sexual assault will increase the number of women sexually assaulted…

  36. This kind of reminds me of the George Carlin joke about the type of women who are against abortion.

    The modern version would be:

    You ever notice the type of women who believes in Yes Means Yes, you wouldn’t want to fuck anyway?

  37. The 1 in 5 number may very well be valid IF you decide to define rape the way they have. I had a friend in college who would specifically get drunk because she wanted to have sex but was too self conscious to do it sober. By their definition, she was raped every weekend despite the fact she made the conscious decision to put herself in that position.

    1. She didn’t make that decision. The patriarchy made it for her.

  38. “Let me get this straight: Any piece of legislation is worthwhile, no matter how terrible it is, as long as it has the goal of decreasing rape?”

    Interesting.

    Because I can think of a legislative change guaranteed to reduce the incidence of campus rape to 0.

    –No person who is a student at an institution of higher learning in the state of (insert state here) may refuse to consent to any sex act at any time for any reason–

    There ya go, no more campus rape because it is impossible legally speaking to rape a college student.

    I mean if Ezra is fine with turning acts which nearly every sane individual would consider to be perfectly acceptable and legal into felonies in the hopes of eliminating some rapes then he should be double plus in favor of a law which eliminates all rapes even if it means turning acts which any sane individual would consider to be a criminal violation of another persons rights legal. Right?

  39. It’s Newtonian Social Justice Physics. For every injustice, there is an equal and opposite injustice. They negate each other. Makes perfect sense if justice is measured in aggregate, ignoring particular situations.
    The logic goes as follows; if 90% of rapes go unprosecuted, we need to increase prosecutions by 90%. Who cares if any particular person is guilty or innocent?

  40. my co-worker’s mother-in-law makes $84 /hr on the internet . She has been without work for eight months but last month her paycheck was $21951 just working on the internet for a few hours. check out the post right here….
    ??????? http://www.paygazette.com

  41. my friend’s sister makes $83 an hour on the laptop . She has been fired for ten months but last month her payment was $12435 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    Find Out More. ???????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  42. Any piece of legislation is worthwhile, no matter how terrible it is, as long as it has the goal of decreasing rape?

    So pass a law mandating that men kill women before having sex with them. 100% application of this law would end rape because, while it may be abusing a corpse, necrophilia is not “rape”.

    Yeah. That’s it.

    What? You say that’s an even worse result than the original “rape” problem?

    How is that any different from the “Yes means Yes” law?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.